Climate change may be hitting migratory species harder than we thought

Current methods don't consider the whole picture when calculating risk.

It's been estimated that up to one in ten species could go extinct by the end of this century as a result of climate change. Conservation professionals are working hard to understand how climate change will influence species and to develop strategies to manage the risks, but migratory species pose a particular challenge. These long-distance migrants spend parts of their annual cycle in different habitats, at different latitudes, and often cross geopolitical boundaries.

Migration is an adaptive response to geographic and seasonal variation in resources, but climate change may disrupt the longstanding, and sometimes impeccably timed, relationships between migratory species and their environment. Changes in ecological conditions may be taking place on both ends of a migratory route, making it difficult to predict how climate alterations will affect a species or affect it across its range.

Climate change vulnerability assessments are used to develop an understanding of species’ vulnerability to climate change and guide management efforts. These frameworks are becoming mainstream decision support tools for conservation in the US, but they may be doing migratory species a disservice, according to a commentary published this week in Nature Climate Change.

Current assessments fall short in predicting the vulnerability of migratory species to climate change, neglecting to look at the species’ migratory status or consider factors that impact the species outside of their breeding grounds. Climate change impacts in one phase of a species' annual cycle could carry over to the next, making it necessary to consider climate impacts across seasons and in various locations.

Many vertebrates in North America are migratory species, including 80 percent of birds. The American Redstart, for example, is a small migratory songbird that spends about two months nesting in the US and Canada, before wintering in Central and South America. The evidence is mounting that, for the Redstart and other species, climate in the wintering grounds can have a variety of effects on the other end of their range. These include an influence on the time that the species arrive at breeding grounds, their reproductive success, and their population dynamics.

By overlooking a significant portion of a species’ annual cycle, key aspects of their biology are overlooked, leading to climate-risk scenarios that are oversimplified. These shortcomings could fail to detect risk to species or population and mislead conservation efforts.

The authors note that although current efforts to assess species’ vulnerability to climate change are commendable, efforts must be taken to update the methods so that they better capture the full annual cycle for migratory species. “We fear that getting it wrong will have enormous costs—the foremost being missed opportunities to take conservation action at the right times and places for those species most likely to be vulnerable.”

Nature is red of tooth and claw. Animals die from a vast number of natural causes, and human intervention usually causes more harm than good. I'm reminded of the elk preservation efforts in Yellowstone. It was also rather amusing when the "animal rights" folks got upset over fox trapping, when the high fox population was impacting some endangered owl or another not too long ago.

A distinction is usually made for humans, based on the "free will" idea. Of course, not all human death is bad either, IMNSHO. ;-)

It is an interesting subject since migratory birds rely on a great diversity of habitats, meteorological clues and environmentally-influenced physiology to be successful. However I do wish the author would have put a few examples of why biologists are worried about the effects of climate change. Citations from the article in Nature Climate Change appear to be focused on rainfall in tropical wintering ground and the affect on wintering birds. Providing any examples of the processes influenced by climate change that are having negative affects on migrating bird species would provide a richer and more interesting article.

Those birds may be more adaptable than is supposed. Canada goose are a migratory species yet here in Chicago where I live they now flock up in the fall, fly around in a circle for a while and then settle down for the winter right where they started. Since city living provides enough food to get them through the winter they don't go through the hassle of actually migrating. Other species may adapt in similar fashion as well.

Good thing migratory species adapt to change like all other life on this planet has been doing since forever. the climate changes. It always has and it always will. It's a dynamic system not a static one.

FYI this type of response doesn't really have any substance to it. Biologists know that organisms are able to adapt to environmental changes. This isn't a new or controversial piece of information. Researchers want to know how a changing climate may affect certain species, and as this article states they want to make sure seasonal ranges of species are taken into account as well.

The American Redstart is a good example. Its a warbler, has extensive wintering and breeding ranges, is not considered an at-risk specie, and utilizes habitats that are common. At a glance it doesn't seem like climate change is a giant risk to it. However some researchers have found that there seems to be a connection with breeding redstart abundance, winter range rainfall, and their food sources. If change in climate in one geographical area can have a detrimental affect on what seems to be an abundant specie, then what else could it effect? Could any of these changes create problems down the line for other organisms, or what about us?

Concluding that this is just a result of change doesn't answer anything. It just ignores it. If your car started making an odd noise one day would you ignore the noise because "hey, cars deteriorate with use, who am I to stop it?" Or would you try to identify the noise, see if the cause is a problem, and then make a decision on whether or not you want to spend the resources to resolve it?

Good thing migratory species adapt to change like all other life on this planet has been doing since forever. the climate changes. It always has and it always will. It's a dynamic system not a static one.

Good thing migratory species adapt to change like all other life on this planet has been doing since forever. the climate changes. It always has and it always will. It's a dynamic system not a static one.

You're right, no sense in scientists studying anything then. Climate is a dynamic system...good god someone call the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences I think we have a winner. Good thing Gomer has this all figured out.

Concluding that this is just a result of change doesn't answer anything. It just ignores it. If your car started making an odd noise one day would you ignore the noise because "hey, cars deteriorate with use, who am I to stop it?" Or would you try to identify the noise, see if the cause is a problem, and then make a decision on whether or not you want to spend the resources to resolve it?

I can't upvote this explanation enough times. It's important to understand why and how things happen, not just shrug your shoulders and say "oh well!" Because if you give up on understanding the mechanics of it, you give up on understanding the subject period. That is a retreat from new knowledge, it's shirking the responsibilities we have to make informed decisions about the new challenges we're constantly facing, it's standing on the brink of the unknown and saying "nope, no further." It's intellectual cowardice. As a society, we cannot afford the comfort of cowardly ignorance. Especially when many of these new challenges are of our own making.

Quote:

The American Redstart is a good example. Its a warbler, has extensive wintering and breeding ranges, is not considered an at-risk specie, and utilizes habitats that are common. At a glance it doesn't seem like climate change is a giant risk to it. However some researchers have found that there seems to be a connection with breeding redstart abundance, winter range rainfall, and their food sources. If change in climate in one geographical area can have a detrimental affect on what seems to be an abundant specie, then what else could it effect? Could any of these changes create problems down the line for other organisms, or what about us?

I was thinking about that as I read the article, because coincidentally today I heard a brief message from one of the biologists at a local university talking about how caterpillars and butterflies that emerge late in their seasons have less chance to stock up on nutrients to complete their lifecycles and successfully reproduce. If migratory birds run into a similar problem where climate change (or deforestation, or other ecological disruptions) interferes with their ability to eat as they're adapted to, species could disappear before they have a chance to change their instinctive behaviors. This attitude some people have that species will adapt seems to overlook that adaptation is never 100% successful; species go extinct all the time in the background, and radically reshaping the environmental pressures they face like we're doing with climate change, ocean acidification, etc. will not slow down the rate of extinction but can only increase it. What would these patriotic folks do if we had let buffalo and bald eagles slide into extinction in the last century? How would they explain this to their children, who would never get the chance to see these iconic symbols of North America alive? Would they excuse it as something that was obviously not a big deal?

What would these patriotic folks do if we had let buffalo and bald eagles slide into extinction in the last century? How would they explain this to their children, who would never get the chance to see these iconic symbols of North America alive? Would they excuse it as something that was obviously not a big deal?

It's the buffalo's fault for not evolving to develop an immunity to bullets and arrows, AMIRITE?

The American Redstart is a good example. Its a warbler, has extensive wintering and breeding ranges, is not considered an at-risk specie, and utilizes habitats that are common. At a glance it doesn't seem like climate change is a giant risk to it. However some researchers have found that there seems to be a connection with breeding redstart abundance, winter range rainfall, and their food sources. If change in climate in one geographical area can have a detrimental affect on what seems to be an abundant specie, then what else could it effect? Could any of these changes create problems down the line for other organisms, or what about us?

Wheels Of Confusion wrote:

I was thinking about that as I read the article, because coincidentally today I heard a brief message from one of the biologists at a local university talking about how caterpillars and butterflies that emerge late in their seasons have less chance to stock up on nutrients to complete their lifecycles and successfully reproduce. If migratory birds run into a similar problem where climate change (or deforestation, or other ecological disruptions) interferes with their ability to eat as they're adapted to, species could disappear before they have a chance to change their instinctive behaviors. This attitude some people have that species will adapt seems to overlook that adaptation is never 100% successful; species go extinct all the time in the background, and radically reshaping the environmental pressures they face like we're doing with climate change, ocean acidification, etc. will not slow down the rate of extinction but can only increase it. What would these patriotic folks do if we had let buffalo and bald eagles slide into extinction in the last century? How would they explain this to their children, who would never get the chance to see these iconic symbols of North America alive? Would they excuse it as something that was obviously not a big deal?

I have heard that synchronization with food sources becomes a problem for birds because, as far as the consensus believes, that photoperiod still plays one of the largest roles in breeding and migration and as far as I know, seasonal photoperiod is not something that has a lot of plasticity. The fear seems to be that if migrating birds rely on food items that have life histories influenced by temperature then migration and food sources will not be synchronized with a warmer climate.

Wheels Of Confusion wrote:

Because if you give up on understanding the mechanics of it, you give up on understanding the subject period. That is a retreat from new knowledge, it's shirking the responsibilities we have to make informed decisions about the new challenges we're constantly facing, it's standing on the brink of the unknown and saying "nope, no further." It's intellectual cowardice. As a society, we cannot afford the comfort of cowardly ignorance. Especially when many of these new challenges are of our own making.

I have heard that synchronization with food sources becomes a problem for birds because, as far as the consensus believes, that photoperiod still plays one of the largest roles in breeding and migration and as far as I know, seasonal photoperiod is not something that has a lot of plasticity. The fear seems to be that if migrating birds rely on food items that have life histories influenced by temperature then migration and food sources will not be synchronized with a warmer climate.

I have heard this analogized to a pass play in football. The ball and the receiver have to arrive at the same place at the same time otherwise the play fails. If the migrating species and its food supply fail to arrive (by whatever means, including hatching or budding or whatever) at the same place at the same time (even by a week or so in some cases), the migrating animals starve... and perhaps an overpopulation of the eaten species results thus causing its own problems. And so on.

Providing any examples of the processes influenced by climate change that are having negative affects on migrating bird species would provide a richer and more interesting article.

Agreed. I have read (probably on Ars) that some species of birds are very dependent on the timing of particular species of insects 'spawning'. They time their migration fairly precisely so they arrive when that occurs.

I'm not sure how much of an impact that would make though. The birds have already adjusted their migratory patterns to meet the insects, maybe they'd be able to do it again. But if they're already on the brink of extinction due to other pressures, it might tip them over the edge.

Climate change MAY BE ... "It's been estimated ... there SEEMS to be a connection ... Changes in ecological conditions MAY BE taking place ... MAY BE doing migratory species a disservice ... shortcomings COULD fail to detect risk to species ...

Wow! What a scary study! MAYBE we should all be worried about how this MIGHT POSSIBLY affect the birds at SOME POSSIBLE point in the future.

It reads just like every other panicky climate change article doesn't it? Someone should put together all of the things that MIGHT happen, maybe, although there is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that the COULD happen.

M'kay,.. you do that ... That's such a genius idea! And maybe someone else should put together another list of all the things that MIGHT NOT happen.

And then we can put both lists side by side, and decide which list is the most ridiculous and least relevant to the facts on hand.

Sounds like a remarkably pragmatic, constructive approach to me. (/sarcasm)

It reads just like every other panicky climate change article doesn't it? Someone should put together all of the things that MIGHT happen, maybe, although there is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that the COULD happen.

WTF are you talking about, the whole paper is about the evidence that this is happening. Also, basically every scientific paper ever written is about 'estimates' and what those estimates 'may' mean. I assume you get as worked up when you read about how physicists 'may' have found the Higgs boson. I mean look at all these fake "scientists" bullshitting about the Higgs boson for the last 40 years.

Edit: Look at this ridiculous article about 'estimating' the mass of a black hole. These guys have no evidence whatsoever that there's a super-massive black hole in that galaxy its just based on dubious 'computer models' that those nefarious researchers can tweak to serve their preconceptions and make up more fake 'questions' so they can get rich off grant money. Did they ever consider that it might be the suns? I mean seriously, that CO is a tiny percent of all the mass in the galaxy, they can't get any estimate from that. Also Al Gore Neil DeGrasse Tyson is fat.

I'm not sure how much of an impact that would make though. The birds have already adjusted their migratory patterns to meet the insects, maybe they'd be able to do it again. But if they're already on the brink of extinction due to other pressures, it might tip them over the edge.

I do some volunteering as a naturalist for a birding organization. One of the games we play for kids is called "bird hurdles". We take them through what it takes to go from, say, Alaska to Mexico; when we talk it over at the end, most are surprised at how hard it is to migrate through cities and farms. If it is the season, we take them down to the nets so they can see these small creatures and imagine this tiny thing flying for weeks to find food after all that stuff the kids had to do.

Migratory species have a substantial advantage in case of climate change, in that they are not tied to a specific habita. They will move elsewhere, increasing their chances of survival.

So sure, in the meantime, it modifies their habits, and this will harm some individuals. It can certainly be argued that these changes increase the death ratio within a migratory specie.

But is that dangerous for the specie ?

The article seems to mix up 2 important and different concepts : endangered species, which may disappear,and the price to pay to adapt to changes.

So, you are driving cross-country for some reason. This time though, your job cut your hours back and you are short on cash. But no problem, you've got this down, you've done it before.

Driving...driving, now you are hungry and you remember a diner you like up ahead. Whoopsie! Economy tanked and its closed! Well, drive on and you'll eat at that little motel you like a few hours ahead. Ewwps! Economy tanked and its closed! Too tired to risk it, you sleep in the back of the car. In the morning, you are tired and hungry and you find a little dump and sorta eat but the coffee is horrible. You press on because you have to get there. A few days of this and by gosh, you nod off at the wheel and....

Chance decides what happens next. Multiply that by 10M across generations.

Pet, feral, and barn cats are also a major threat to migratory birds, which magnifies the problems caused by climate change and habitat destruction. This has been known for a long time, but the most recent study seems to be more comprehensive and points to them playing an even larger role than previously suspected. Just one more reason for me to get annoyed at the people who keep feeding the stray cat population in my local park by leaving trays of catfood out everywhere, which the cats are extremely efficient at turning into more litters of feral cats. And the more stray and feral cats there are there, the more food these misguided people leave out for them.

Migratory species have a substantial advantage in case of climate change, in that they are not tied to a specific habita. They will move elsewhere, increasing their chances of survival.

That's completely untrue as a generalization. Migratory species can be just as particular about their habitats as non-migratory species. The only thing it tells you as that they can survive in at minimum two different habitats, and it still doesn't tell you anything about how many habitats they can successfully *breed* in, which of course is rather important.

For example the Golden Cheeked Warbler breeds only in mixed woods of oak and mature ash juniper. Due to habitat destruction, its breeding range is now limited to a small area of central Texas. It can *also* survive in its wintering habitat in the mountains of southern Mexico and nearby Central American countries. It cannot breed there. So this "adaptability" does it no good if its breeding ground is destroyed or otherwise disrupted.

And then on the other hand there is the non-migratory Northern Cardinal which can be successful in just about any habitat east of the Rockies in both summer and winter.

Remember, part of the advantage of migration is that it means a species *doesn't* have to adapt to changes in its habitat due to changing seasons. In some ways, migratory birds are less adaptable.

Pet, feral, and barn cats are also a major threat to migratory birds, which magnifies the problems caused by climate change and habitat destruction. This has been known for a long time, but the most recent study seems to be more comprehensive and points to them playing an even larger role than previously suspected. Just one more reason for me to get annoyed at the people who keep feeding the stray cat population in my local park by leaving trays of catfood out everywhere, which the cats are extremely efficient at turning into more litters of feral cats. And the more stray and feral cats there are there, the more food these misguided people leave out for them.

Here's something to cheer you up(even though it's actually about feral pigeons)

Allie Wilkinson / Allie is a freelance contributor to Ars Technica. She received a B.A. in Environmental Studies from Eckerd College and a Certificate in Conservation Biology from Columbia University's Earth Institute Center for Environmental Sustainability.